Competitive Enterprise Institutehttps://cei.org
enLetter to EPA Administrator Wheeler on Bristol Bay Watershed Assessmenthttps://cei.org/content/letter-epa-administrator-wheeler-bristol-bay-watershed-assessment
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p style="text-align: center;">Letter in <a href="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Lieberman%2020190320%20Wheeler%20Bristol%20Bay%20letter.pdf">PDF</a></p>
<p>March 20, 2019</p>
<p>Andrew Wheeler<br />
Administrator<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />
Washington, D.C. 20460</p>
<p>Re: Request for Correction Number 19001 Pertaining to the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment</p>
<p>Dear Administrator Wheeler:</p>
<p>On November 14, 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute <a href="https://cei.org/content/cei-asks-epa-withdraw-premature-and-speculative-bristol-bay-watershed-assessment-proposed">filed a Request for Correction</a> regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA) and consequent agency action rejecting the Pebble Mine project in Alaska. As discussed in the request, the BBWA fell well short of the standards set out in the Information Quality Act and your agency’s implementing guidelines. We believe the best course of action for the agency would be to withdraw this highly flawed assessment and rescind the use of it to veto the Pebble project.</p>
<p>We noted in particular that the data-gathering process for the BBWA was inherently flawed in that no permit application for the Pebble Mine had yet been submitted. For this reason, EPA’s analysis was based on its own guess of what a future application might look like. We also noted that important stakeholders, including the State of Alaska, complained that they had limited input into the BBWA process. Similarly, the Army Corps of Engineers, statutorily the lead agency on such permit applications, declined to participate on the grounds that without a permit application any analysis would be premature and speculative. We also detailed the selective use of inputs and expertise in developing the BBWA as well as numerous instances of bias. Overall, there were both substantive and process flaws to the BBWA that made it suspect under the Information Quality Act.</p>
<p>We concluded our Request for Correction by noting that the Army Corps of Engineers had begun its far more robust and comprehensive review of the Pebble Mine based on the actual permit application. Indeed, EPA’s pre-emptive veto represented the first and only time the agency took such action prior to an Army Corps of Engineers’ permit review. Notwithstanding EPA’s efforts towards circumventing the process, the Army Corps has continued its work and has now reached the important stage of introducing a detailed Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and opening it up to comment by all interested parties. Thus far, this process is proving itself to be everything the BBWA was not – timely, inclusive, exhaustive, and completely data-driven. As such, it comports well with the requirements of the Information Quality Act.</p>
<p>It should also be noted that, regardless of the status of the BBWA, EPA will have every opportunity to participate in the process now being led by the Army Corps of Engineers, beginning with agency comment on the DEIS. Furthermore, once the DEIS is finalized EPA will have the opportunity to consider exercising its veto authority over the project. However, in sharp contrast to the agency’s previous veto based on the BBWA, this decision would be a much better informed one based on a more comprehensive record and higher quality data. The continued existence of the flawed BBWA as EPA’s official position on the Pebble Mine can only undercut this process.</p>
<p>For these reasons, we again respectfully request the agency to create a clean slate by promptly withdrawing its BBWA and veto of the Pebble Mine, and instead participate in the Army Corps process now underway. Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Respectfully Submitted,</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Ben Lieberman</strong></p>
<p>Senior Fellow<br /><a href="mailto:ben.lieberman@cei.org">ben.lieberman@cei.org</a><br />
Senior Fellow<br />
202-331-1010</p>
<p>Competitive Enterprise Institute<br />
1310 L Street NW, 7<sup>th</sup> Floor<br />
Washington, D.C. 20005</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Wednesday, March 20, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-publication-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Publication Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/publication-types/outreach/regulatory-comments-and-testimony">Regulatory Comments and Testimony</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/energy-and-environment">Energy and Environment</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/issues/water">Water</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/lands-and-wildlife">Lands and Wildlife</a></div></div></div>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:02:13 +0000Richard Morrison94890 at https://cei.orgThe Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investment in our Nation's Airports Mattershttps://cei.org/content/cost-doing-nothing-why-investment-our-nations-airports-matters
<div class="field field--name-field-location field--type-addressfield field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><div class="addressfield-container-inline organisation-block"><span class="organisation-name">House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee</span></div>
<div class="street-block"><div class="thoroughfare">Capitol Visitors Center</div>
<div class="premise">First St NE</div></div>
<div class="addressfield-container-inline locality-block country-US"><span class="locality">Washington</span>, <span class="state">DC</span> <span class="postal-code">20515</span></div>
<span class="country">United States</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-event-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Event Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><ul id="addtocal_node_94889_menu" class="addtocal_menu"><li><a href="/node/94889/field_event_date//addtocal-google" target="_blank">Google</a></li>
<li><a href="/node/94889/field_event_date//addtocal.ics">Outlook</a></li>
<li><a href="/node/94889/field_event_date//addtocal.ics">MAC/iOS</a></li>
</ul></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Marc Scribner testifying</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Marc Scribner testifying</p>
<hr /><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>WHEN:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Tuesday, March 26, 2019<br />
10:00 AM</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>WHERE:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">House Commitee on Transportation and Infrastructure <br />
HVC 210, Capitol Visitors Center<br />
Washington, D.C. 20515</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>WHO:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Witnesses:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Tori Barnes </strong><br />
Executive Vice President, Public Affairs, U.S. Travel Association</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Ted Christie</strong><br />
CEO and President, Spirit Airlines, Inc.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Lawrence J. Krauter</strong><br />
CEO, Spokane International Airport</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Joe Lopano</strong><br />
CEO, Tampa International Airport</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Candace S. McGraw</strong><br />
CEO, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cei.org/expert/marc-scribner"><strong>Marc Scribner</strong></a><br />
Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Watch the hearing live via the website of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure <a href="https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/the-cost-of-doing-nothing-why-investment-in-our-nations-airports-matters">here</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/transportation-and-infrastructure">Transportation and Infrastructure</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/issues/aviation">Aviation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/transportation">transportation</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/passenger-facility-charge">passenger facility charge</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/infrastructure-financing">infrastructure financing</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/airports">airports</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/airlines">airlines</a></div></div></div>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:32:34 +0000Richard Morrison94889 at https://cei.orgCEI Disappointed in Outcome of Supreme Court Decision in Class Action Settlement Case, Frank v. Gaos, but Hopeful for Future Resolutionhttps://cei.org/content/cei-disappointed-outcome-supreme-court-decision-class-action-settlement-case-frank-v-gaos
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>In <em>Frank v. Gaos</em>, a class action-related case initiated by former CEI attorneys, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided to send the case back to the lower courts to address the plaintiffs’ legal right to sue. Competitive Enterprise Institute President <a href="https://cei.org/content/kent-lassman">Kent Lassman</a> expressed disappointment that the crucial matters at stake in the case today were left unresolved.</p>
<p>Statement by <a href="https://cei.org/content/kent-lassman">CEI President Kent Lassman</a>:</p>
<p>“While we are disappointed the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of <em>Frank v. Gaos</em>, CEI is proud of our role shepherding the case to the Supreme Court and the work of Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak, now with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. Together we have steadfastly advocated for consumers and for reform of a system that allows unscrupulous attorneys to put their own interests ahead of their clients’. We are confident the standing issue will be resolved in the lower courts and the Supreme Court can take the case again. Regardless, the precedents set by Frank and Holyoak help ensure the class action system is reformed to the benefit of consumers and class members.”</p>
<p>Read <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/frank-v-gaos/">more about <em>Frank v. Gaos</em></a>, litigated by the <a href="https://hlli.org/">Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute</a>.</p>
<p>Read today’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-961_j42k.pdf">full decision</a>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><img src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/SCOTUS.gov__1.jpg" width="550" height="363" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-experts field--type-entityreference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Experts:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Kent Lassman</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Wednesday, March 20, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/law-and-constitution">Law and Constitution</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/issues/class-action-fairness">Class Action Fairness</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/cy-pres">CY PRES</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/fran-v-gaos">Fran v. Gaos</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/class-action">class action</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/ted-frank">Ted Frank</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-media-appearance-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Media appearance type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/media-appearance-types/news-releases">News Releases</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">In Frank v. Gaos, a class action-related case initiated by former CEI attorneys, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided to send the case back to the lower courts to address the plaintiffs’ legal right to sue. Competitive Enterprise Institute President Kent Lassman expressed disappointment that the crucial matters at stake in the case today were left unresolved.</div></div></div>Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:05:25 +0000Richard Morrison94888 at https://cei.orgCEI Comments on EPA's Review of its Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Performance Standards for New Coal-fired Power Plantshttps://cei.org/content/cei-comments-epas-review-its-carbon-dioxide-co2-performance-standards-new-coal-fired-power
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/MarloLewisComments03192019.pdf">View Full Document as PDF</a></p>
<p>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of its carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) performance standards for new coal-fired power plants.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) strongly supports EPA’s proposed revisions of the standards and the analysis—the best system of emission reduction (BSER) determination—on which the standards are based.</p>
<p><strong>I. Introduction</strong></p>
<p>EPA sets emission performance standards for new (future) sources in numerous industrial categories under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Such standards are to reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”</p>
<p>Under the Obama administration, EPA determined that partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the best system of emission reduction for CO<sub>2</sub> emitted by new coal power plants. Based on that determination, EPA required new units to meet an emission performance standard of 1,400 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a></p>
<p>In the present rulemaking, EPA proposes to revise its BSER determination and the associated performance standards. EPA finds that partial CCS is too costly and geographically limited to be the adequately demonstrated BSER. Instead, EPA proposes to determine that BSER is “the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units) in combination with the best operating practices.” Based on that determination, EPA proposes to set performance standards of 1,900 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh for new large coal power plants, 2,000 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh for new small units, and 2,200 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh for new coal refuse-fired units.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> </p>
<p><strong>II: Overview of Key Points</strong></p>
<ol><li>EPA is correct: <a name="_Hlk3838688" id="_Hlk3838688">Partial carbon capture and storage is too costly and geographically limited to provide uniform (industry-wide) performance standards for new coal power plants. </a></li>
<li value="2">EPA’s October 2015 final rule is a <em>de facto</em> ban on investment in new coal generation—a policy Congress never authorized and would reject if put to a vote. EPA’s proposed revisions will both repair a breech in the separation of powers and help keep electricity prices affordable for consumers.</li>
<li value="3">Although EPA’s 2014 and 2012 proposed rules are not the focus of the current rulemaking, those actions are relevant to the larger policy discussion. The 2015 standard evolved from more aggressive proposals that are inexplicable apart from <a name="_Hlk3758147" id="_Hlk3758147">an unlawful ambition to kill the future of coal-based power.</a></li>
<li value="4">EPA’s review of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case law should include additional discussion of <em>National Lime Association v. EPA</em>. <em>Lime</em>’s ruling that new source standards must be “achievable” in all parts of the country strengthens EPA’s argument that CCS is not an appropriate BSER because its water-intensity makes it prohibitively expensive in arid regions.</li>
<li value="5">Another geographic constraint, although not discussed by EPA, may be even more critical. Only two utility-scale commercial CCS power plants exist in the entire world. Selling CO<sub>2</sub> to nearby enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects is central to their business plans. Only twelve states have EOR projects.</li>
<li value="6">EPA should review whether CCS in commercial practice—that is, in partnership with EOR—is a bona system of emission reduction. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) estimates indicate that the combination of CCS and EOR emits 1.4-2.6 times more CO<sub>2</sub> than a conventional coal power plant. </li>
</ol><p><strong>III: Carbon capture and storage is too costly to qualify as an adequately demonstrated best system of emission reduction.</strong></p>
<p>Absent subsidies, few if any utilities will invest in new coal generation with carbon capture and storage. CCS adds significantly to both the capital and operating costs of new coal power plants, and the levelized cost of new conventional coal generation already tends to exceed that of natural gas combined cycle generation.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a></p>
<p></p><div class="media media-element-container media-default"><div id="file-22725" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/marlo1jpg">marlo1.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img class="media-element file-default" data-delta="1" src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/marlo1.jpg" width="707" height="183" alt="" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p><div class="media media-element-container media-default"><div id="file-22726" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/marlo2jpg">marlo2.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img class="media-element file-default" data-delta="2" src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/marlo2.jpg" width="705" height="190" alt="" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Although carbon capture systems can substantially increase power plant construction costs, EPA is most concerned about the increase in operating costs. In deregulated markets, where units with the lowest operating costs are the first to be “dispatched,” CCS power plants would often go to the back of the queue, rendering them uncompetitive or even unable to recover their capital costs.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a></p>
<p>Consequently, the current standards function as a <em>de facto</em> ban on investment in new coal generation. That is a policy Congress never authorized and would reject if put to a vote. EPA’s proposal will repair a breach in the separation of powers. It may also benefit consumers by preserving the option to utilize America’s vast coal reserves for electric power generation should changes in fuel prices or technology improve the economics of new coal generation.</p>
<p><strong>IV: The 2015 Standards Derive from an Unlawful Agenda</strong></p>
<p>Although the Obama EPA’s 2014 and 2012 proposed rules are not the focus of the current rulemaking, those actions are relevant to the larger policy discussion. The 2015 standard evolved from more aggressive proposals that are inexplicable apart from an unlawful ambition to kill the future of coal-based power.</p>
<p><u>2012 Rulemaking</u></p>
<p>In April 2012, EPA proposed to determine that natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) is the adequately demonstrated best system of emission reduction for new coal power plants. EPA proposed a performance standard of 1,000 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh for new coal power plants, because that is the “degree of emission limitation achievable through natural gas combined cycle generation.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a> EPA acknowledged that no existing coal plants came close to meeting the standard. The agency estimated that the most efficient units, on average, emit 1,800 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="" id="_ftnref7">[7]</a> </p>
<p>EPA speculated that a coal power plant equipped with CCS could meet the standard. However, EPA rejected carbon capture as BSER because “today’s CCS technologies would add around 80 percent to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal (PC) plant, and around 35 percent to the cost of electricity for a new advanced gasification-based (IGCC) plant.”<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8">[8]</a> In short, the 2012 rulemaking proposed a standard that no commercially-viable coal plant could meet.</p>
<p>The proposal was too clever by half because it was downright weird. Performance standards are supposed to reflect the best “system of emission reduction.” But natural gas combined cycle is not a system of emission reduction. It is a type of power plant. Or, if it is a system of emission reduction, it is only so for gas-fired electricity. EPA was not actually proposing that new coal power plants reduce emissions to 1,000 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh. Rather, EPA proposed to set a standard that would require utilities planning to build new coal power plants to build new NGCC power plants instead.</p>
<p>Claiming that natural gas combined cycle is the adequately demonstrated BSER for coal power plants is no more reasonable than claiming that zero-carbon nuclear-, hydro-, wind-, or solar-generation is best system for NGCC power plants. The 2012 proposal was the first time EPA ever defined a performance standard such that one type of source can comply only by being something other than what it is.</p>
<p>To make it look legal, EPA proposed to redefine source categories in the Code of Federal Regulations. Up to that point, EPA regulated coal and NGCC power plants under different parts of the Code—Subpart Da for coal boilers, and Subpart KKKK for gas turbines. The 2012 rulemaking proposed to regulate coal boilers and gas turbines as a single source category—fossil-fuel electric generating units (EGUs)—under a new subpart numbered TTTT. But only for carbon dioxide! Coal boilers and gas turbines would continue to be regulated as separate source categories for criteria and toxic pollutants under Subparts Da and KKKK.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="" id="_ftnref9">[9]</a></p>
<p>Why continue to regulate coal boilers and gas turbines as separate categories for those pollutants? EPA’s answer: “This is because although coal-fired EGUs have an array of control options for criteria and air toxic air pollutants to choose from, those controls generally do not reduce their criteria and air toxic emissions to the level of conventional emissions from natural gas-fired EGUs.”<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10">[10]</a></p>
<p>That reasoning should also preclude imposing the same carbon dioxide standard on coal boilers and natural gas turbines. As the proposal’s rejection of CCS as BSER implied, coal plants have no “adequately demonstrated” options to match the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions profile of new NGCC power plants.</p>
<p><u>2014 Rulemaking </u></p>
<p>The rebooted proposal published in January 2014 was still a de facto ban on investment in new coal generation, just not as blatantly so. This time EPA proposed two separate standards: 1,000 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh for new natural gas combined cycle, and 1,100 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh for new coal power plants.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11">[11]</a> That was a distinction without a difference, because commercially-viable coal power plants, which emit 1,800 lbs. CO<sub>2</sub>/MWh, were still not within hailing distance of the standard.</p>
<p>EPA now proposed to determine that carbon capture and storage was the BSER for new coal power plants. EPA claimed that during the period between the original and revised proposals, several utility-scale CCS projects had made significant progress towards completion, so the technology now qualified as “adequately demonstrated.”<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12">[12]</a></p>
<p>That assessment was unpersuasive then and is even less so now. None of the utility-scale CCS projects EPA cited were built without substantial subsidies. For example, the 2014 proposal cites the Kemper County IGCC/CCS plant on 10 different pages. Once the pride of the American fleet, Kemper received a $270 million grant from the Department of Energy, $133 million in tax credits from the IRS (although construction delays caused Mississippi Power to forfeit the IRS credits in October 2013),<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13">[13]</a> and $800 million in rate hikes to offset construction costs.<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14">[14]</a> Yet those massive ratepayer and taxpayer subsidies could not make Kemper economically viable. On June 28, 2017, with Kemper three years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget, Mississippi Power announced it was abandoning its “clean coal” project and planned to build a new natural gas combined cycle power plant instead.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15">[15]</a> </p>
<p>The Department of Energy has been funding research and development of CCS since 1997. Congress has “provided more than $5 billion total in appropriations for DOE CCS-related activities” since fiscal year 2010.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16">[16]</a> The European Union has spent nearly $500 million on CCS R&amp;D.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17">[17]</a> The governments of Canada, Japan, and China also support CCS projects.<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18">[18]</a> Reuters reports that public and private sources worldwide have invested $20 billion in CCS.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="" id="_ftnref19">[19]</a></p>
<p>Yet today only two utility-scale commercial CCS power plants exist in the entire world: Petra Nova in Texas, which received $167 million from DOE,<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title="" id="_ftnref20">[20]</a> and Boundary Dam, in Saskatchewan, which received $240 million from Canada’s federal government.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title="" id="_ftnref21">[21]</a> Given those facts, the claim that CCS is “adequately demonstrated”—and already was so in 2014—is preposterous.</p>
<p>The key point here is that EPA’s 2014 proposal was profoundly anti-coal, even if less brazen than the 2012 proposal. Any policy that makes the construction of new coal generation contingent on the receipt of substantial taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies increases the already formidable financial and political risks facing coal companies.</p>
<p>It is often said that the superior economics of gas caused the recent wave of coal plant retirements and coal company bankruptcies. That is largely correct, but the “war on coal” was nonetheless real and it took a heavy toll.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="" id="_ftnref22">[22]</a> Through the mercury rule,<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title="" id="_ftnref23">[23]</a> the saline effluent rule,<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title="" id="_ftnref24">[24]</a> the stream buffer zone rule,<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title="" id="_ftnref25">[25]</a> the coal leasing moratorium,<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title="" id="_ftnref26">[26]</a> EPA’s takeover of state regional haze programs,<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title="" id="_ftnref27">[27]</a> the 2015 new source rule, and, of course, the so-called Clean Power Plan,<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title="" id="_ftnref28">[28]</a> the Obama administration pursued a shoot-the-wounded policy towards the U.S. coal industry.</p>
<p>Few investors are willing to park their capital in an industry the U.S. Government seeks to handicap, shrink, and, ultimately, eliminate. The 2012 and 2014 new source proposals reveal with shocking clarity the prior administration’s determination to preclude any revival of coal-based power in America regardless of how market conditions might change. </p>
<p><strong>V: EPA’s review of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case law should include additional discussion of <em>National Lime Association v. EPA</em>.</strong></p>
<p>D.C. Circuit case law holds that an adequately demonstrated BSER is ‘‘one which has been shown to be reasonably reliable, reasonably efficient and which can reasonably be expected to serve the interests of pollution control without becoming exorbitantly costly in an economic or environmental way.’’<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title="" id="_ftnref29">[29]</a> EPA finds that the significant water consumption requirements of most CCS systems make them “prohibitively expensive” to deploy in arid regions of the country.<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title="" id="_ftnref30">[30]</a> That renders CCS ineligible as BSER due to its high cost, but also due to its limited “geographic availability.”<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title="" id="_ftnref31">[31]</a></p>
<p>EPA does not spell out the premise of that criticism, which may be expressed as follows. New source performance standards are uniform, hence are intended to be achievable by any new facility built anywhere in the United States. Therefore, such standards must reflect emission reduction systems that are available at reasonable cost in all parts of the country.</p>
<p>In the final rule, EPA should include additional discussion of <em>National Lime Association v. Environmental Protection Agency</em> (1980). In <em>Lime</em>, the court held that new source performance standards must be “achievable” by the regulated “industry as a whole” under the “most adverse conditions” that may recur “anywhere in the country.”<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title="" id="_ftnref32">[32]</a></p>
<p>The case dealt with the lime industry’s challenge to the representativeness of the data on which EPA set particulate matter standards. The court stated, inter alia:</p>
<ul><li>EPA’s test data for determining BSER must be “representative” to ensure that the associated standards are “achievable by the industry as a whole.”</li>
</ul><ul><li>Although an achievable standard “need not be one already routinely achieved by the industry,” a “uniform standard must be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur.”</li>
</ul><ul><li>BSER determinations should consider “variable conditions . . . that affect the efficiency of the emissions control systems considered.”</li>
</ul><ul><li>EPA should provide “some assurance of the achievability of the standard for the industry as a whole, given the range of variable factors found relevant to the standards’ achievability.”</li>
</ul><ul><li>“EPA itself acknowledged that standards of performance . . . must . . . meet these conditions for all variations of operating conditions being considered anywhere in the country.”</li>
</ul><p>The relevance to EPA’s review of the 2015 standards is clear. Because water-intensive CCS systems are prohibitively expensive to deploy in arid regions, CCS-based standards are not achievable in “all variations of operating conditions being considered anywhere in the country.”</p>
<p>As former CEI analyst William Yeatman argued in his comment letter on the 2014 proposal, “achievability” has a “geographical component.” An “adequately demonstrated” technology must be available at reasonable cost in “all parts of the country” if the associated standards are to be “achievable.”<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title="" id="_ftnref33">[33]</a> Yeatman noted that CCS-based standards are not achievable because CCS power plants depend financially on CO<sub>2</sub> sales to enhanced oil recovery projects, which do not exist in all parts of the country. We turn to that issue next.</p>
<p><strong>VI: </strong><strong>CCS power plants depend financially on access to EOR projects, which do not exist in 38 states.</strong></p>
<p>As noted above, Petra Nova in Texas and Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan are the only utility-scale commercial CCS power plants in the world. Generating revenue from CO<sub>2</sub> sales to nearby EOR projects offsets the expense of their CCS systems and is a central feature of their business plans.</p>
<p>Many potential sites of new coal power plants are not near EOR projects. As of August 2018, twelve states had EOR projects: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Michigan.<a href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title="" id="_ftnref34">[34]</a></p>
<p></p><div class="media media-element-container media-default"><div id="file-22727" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg">
<h2 class="element-invisible"><a href="/file/marlo3jpg">marlo3.jpg</a></h2>
<div class="content">
<img class="media-element file-default" data-delta="3" src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/marlo3.jpg" width="900" height="602" alt="" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Growing global petroleum demand, technological advancements, and government incentives may increase the number of states with EOR projects and pipeline networks connecting oil fields to natural and industrial CO<sub>2</sub> sources. Nonetheless, CCS cannot be adequately demonstrated when its financial viability depends on partnering with a type of petroleum production absent from 38 states.</p>
<p>Yeatman put it this way: “CCS without access to EOR is much more expensive than CCS with access to EOR, perhaps ‘exorbitantly’ so, and therefore unachievable.”<a href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title="" id="_ftnref35">[35]</a></p>
<p><strong>VII. EPA should review its assessment that CCS in actual commercial practice reduces emissions.</strong></p>
<p>Yeatman was the first to spot this problem. EOR projects inject CO<sub>2</sub> captured from natural or industrial sources into older wells. That builds pressure within the field and reduces the oil’s viscosity. As a result, more oil flows to the well bore and production increases.</p>
<p>When the recovered oil is combusted, it emits CO<sub>2</sub>, which raises an obvious question: What is the <em>net change</em> in emissions when CCS and EOR are combined? </p>
<p>In a 2011 report, DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) estimated that injecting 20 billion tons of CO<sub>2</sub> underground for EOR would increase U.S. oil production by 67 billion barrels.<a href="#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title="" id="_ftnref36">[36]</a> According to EPA emissions data, combusting one barrel of oil emits, on average, 0.43 metric tons of CO<sub>2</sub>.<a href="#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title="" id="_ftnref37">[37]</a> Plugging that conversion factor into NETL’s analysis, injection of 20 billion metric tons of CO<sub>2</sub> produces 67 billion barrels of oil that, when combusted, emit 28.81 billion metric tons of CO<sub>2</sub>. In other words, CCS combined with EOR emits 1.41 tons of CO<sub>2</sub> for every ton injected underground.</p>
<p>In another report, an EOR primer, NETL summarizes a Montana Tech University study of a potential CCS-EOR operation:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;">For example, a study by Montana Tech University found that CO<sub>2</sub> flooding of Montana’s Elm Coulee and Cedar Creek oil fields could result in the recovery of 666 million barrels of incremental oil and the storage of 2.1 trillion cubic feet (109 million metric tons) of CO<sub>2</sub>. All of the CO<sub>2</sub> required for the flood could be supplied by a nearby, coal-fired power plant, and would equate to 7 years of the plant’s CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<a href="#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title="" id="_ftnref38">[38]</a></p>
<p>Again, using EPA’s emission conversion factor, when combusted, the 666 million barrels of oil recovered would emit 286 million metric tons of CO<sub>2</sub>—more than twice the quantity (109 million metric tons) injected and sequestered. That implies an even bigger net increase than NETL’s 2011 report indicates—about 2.6 tons of CO<sub>2</sub> emitted for every ton stored underground.</p>
<p>The standard rejoinder to such calculations is that all or most recovered oil does not increase total oil supply but simply displaces higher-cost production that would otherwise occur somewhere else. However, that assumes oil markets are perfectly “competitive” in the textbook economic theory sense.<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title="" id="_ftnref39">[39]</a> In other words, it assumes oil producers are price takers who are powerless to influence the prices to which they respond.</p>
<p>If that described reality, Saudi Arabia would have reduced output barrel-for-barrel as U.S. oil production from shale surged. Instead, the Saudis increased output in hopes of driving oil prices down below U.S. firms’ production costs. Or, conversely, if oil were a textbook market, U.S. firms would have decreased production as Saudi output increased. Instead, the most disciplined and resourceful increased efficiency to lower their production costs.</p>
<p>In the long run, because EOR enables oil companies to produce more oil at lower cost, it will tend to increase production, which will tend to hold down oil prices, which will tend to increase consumption, which will tend to increase emissions.</p>
<p>The 2014 proposal and 2015 rule assumed uncritically that CCS is a bona fide system of emission reduction. There is good reason to doubt that it is so in actual commercial practice. EPA should examine this set of issues.</p>
<p><strong>VIII: Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>CEI strongly supports EPA’s proposed revisions of its BSER determination and new source performance standards for coal-fired power plants.</p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage is too costly and geographically limited to establish uniform (industry-wide) performance standards for new coal power plants. EPA’s proposed revisions will both repair a breech in the separation of powers and help keep electricity prices affordable for consumers.</p>
<p>Additional discussion of <em>National Lime Association v. EPA</em> would strengthen EPA’s argument that CCS is an inappropriate BSER because its water-intensity renders it prohibitively expensive in arid regions.</p>
<p>EPA should also develop the case that CCS cannot be the BSER for new coal power plants because its commercial viability depends on access to EOR projects, which do not exist in most of the country.</p>
<p>Finally, EPA should review the core premise of the 2015 rule, namely, that CCS in actual commercial practice is a system of emission reduction. Lifecycle analysis based on NETL production estimates and EPA emission factors indicates that CCS combined with EOR emits more CO<sub>2</sub> than a conventional coal power plant.</p>
<p>Respectfully Submitted,</p>
<p>Marlo Lewis, Ph.D.</p>
<p>Senior Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy</p>
<p>Competitive Enterprise Institute</p>
<p>202-331-1010</p>
<p><a href="mailto:Marlo.Lewis@cei.org">Marlo.Lewis@cei.org</a></p>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> EPA, Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 83 FR 65424, December 20, 2018, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-20/pdf/2018-27052.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-20/pdf/2018-27052.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> EPA, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Final Rule, 80 FR 64512, October 23, 2015, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22837.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22837.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> 83 FR 65431</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> 83 FR 65436, Table IV</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> 83 FR 65438</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> EPA, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, Proposed rule, 77 FR 22394-22395, April 13, 2012,</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> 77 FR 22417</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> 77 FR 22415</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="" id="_ftn9">[9]</a> 77 FR 22406</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="" id="_ftn10">[10]</a> 77 FR 22411</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="" id="_ftn11">[11]</a> EPA, <em>Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units</em>, Proposed Rule, 79 FR 1433, January 8, 2014, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-01-08/pdf/2013-28668.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-01-08/pdf/2013-28668.pdf</a> </p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="" id="_ftn12">[12]</a> 79 FR 1434</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="" id="_ftn13">[13]</a> MIT Kemper County IGCC Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture Project, <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html">https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html</a> </p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="" id="_ftn14">[14]</a> Stephen Mufson, “‘Clean coal’ plant suspends work as Trump administration celebrates ‘energy week,” Washington Post, June 29, 2018, <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-southern-clean-coal-plant-shuts-down-20170629-story.html">https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-southern-clean-coal-plant-shuts-down-20170629-story.html</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="" id="_ftn15">[15]</a> Katie Fehrenbacher, “Carbon Capture Suffers a Huge Setback as Kemper Plant Suspends Work: It’s the latest U.S. government-supported boondoggle around CCS,” Greentech Media, June 29, 2017, <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/carbon-capture-suffers-a-huge-setback-as-kemper-plant-suspends-work#gs.1yk659">https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/carbon-capture-suffers-a-huge-setback-as-kemper-plant-suspends-work#gs.1yk659</a>; Jamie Condliffe, “Clean Coal’s Flagship Project Has Failed: A plan to slash emissions from coal burning by 65 percent has proved too problematic at the beleaguered Kemper power plant,” MIT Technology Review, June 29, 2017, <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608191/clean-coals-flagship-project-has-failed/">https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608191/clean-coals-flagship-project-has-failed/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="" id="_ftn16">[16]</a> Peter Folger, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States, Congressional Research Service, August 9, 2018, <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44902.pdf">https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44902.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="" id="_ftn17">[17]</a> Akshat Rathi, “The EU has spent nearly $500 million on [CCS] technology to fight climate change, with little to show for it,” Quarts, October 23, 2018, <a href="https://qz.com/1431655/the-eu-spent-e424-million-on-carbon-capture-with-little-to-show-for-it/">https://qz.com/1431655/the-eu-spent-e424-million-on-carbon-capture-with-little-to-show-for-it/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="" id="_ftn18">[18]</a> MIT, Canada CCS Financing Overview, <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/canada_ccs_background.html">https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/canada_ccs_background.html</a>; Tomakomai Project Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/tomakomai.html">https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/tomakomai.html</a>; Daqing Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/daqing.html">https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/daqing.html</a> </p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="" id="_ftn19">[19]</a> Aaron Sheldrick, “Japan carbon capture site shows promise in industrial use,” Reuters, April 19, 2018, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-carbon-storage/japan-carbon-capture-site-shows-promise-for-industrial-use-idUSKBN1HQ0WZ">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-carbon-storage/japan-carbon-capture-site-shows-promise-for-industrial-use-idUSKBN1HQ0WZ</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title="" id="_ftn20">[20]</a> MIT, Petra Nova W.A. Parish Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/wa_parish.html">https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/wa_parish.html</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title="" id="_ftn21">[21]</a> MIT, Boundary Dam Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html">https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title="" id="_ftn22">[22]</a> William Yeatman, “Yes, America, There Is a War on Coal,” GlobalWarming.Org, September 23, 2012, <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/09/23/yes-america-there-is-a-war-on-coal/">http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/09/23/yes-america-there-is-a-war-on-coal/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title="" id="_ftn23">[23]</a> Marlo Lewis, William Yeatman, and David Bier, All Pain and No Gain: The Illusory Benefits of the Utility MACT, Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 12, 2012, <a href="https://cei.org/issue-analysis/all-pain-and-no-gain">https://cei.org/issue-analysis/all-pain-and-no-gain</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title="" id="_ftn24">[24]</a> William Yeatman, “Update on EPA’s War on Coal: Trading Jobs for Bugs in Appalachia,” GlobalWarming.Org, July 23, 2011, <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/23/update-on-epa%E2%80%99s-war-on-coal-trading-jobs-for-bugs-in-appalachia/">http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/07/23/update-on-epa%E2%80%99s-war-on-coal-trading-jobs-for-bugs-in-appalachia/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title="" id="_ftn25">[25]</a> William Yeatman, “Obama Administration Plans Second Front in War on Appalachian Coal Production,” GlobalWarming.Org, February 2, 2011, <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/02/02/obama-administration-plans-second-front-in-war-on-appalachian-coal-production/">http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/02/02/obama-administration-plans-second-front-in-war-on-appalachian-coal-production/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title="" id="_ftn26">[26]</a> Joby Warrick and Juliette Eilperin, “Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases,” Washington Post, January 15, 2016, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/14/obama-administration-set-to-announce-moratorium-on-some-new-federal-coal-leases/?utm_term=.d95384b1dc45">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/14/obama-administration-set-to-announce-moratorium-on-some-new-federal-coal-leases/?utm_term=.d95384b1dc45</a> </p>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title="" id="_ftn27">[27]</a> William Yeatman, “EPA Imposes 54<sup>th</sup> Clean Air Act Federal Takeover of a State Program (previous three presidents imposed 5 total among them),” GlobalWarming.Org, December 9, 2015, <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/12/09/epa-imposes-54th-clean-air-act-federal-takeover-of-a-state-program-previous-3-presidents-imposed-5-total-among-them/">http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/12/09/epa-imposes-54th-clean-air-act-federal-takeover-of-a-state-program-previous-3-presidents-imposed-5-total-among-them/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn28">
<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title="" id="_ftn28">[28]</a> Marlo Lewis, CEI Comments on EPA’s Proposal to Repeal the Clean Power Plan, April 26, 2018, <a href="https://cei.org/content/comments-submitted-free-market-groups-epas-proposed-rule-repeal-clean-power-plan">https://cei.org/content/comments-submitted-free-market-groups-epas-proposed-rule-repeal-clean-power-plan</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn29">
<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title="" id="_ftn29">[29]</a> 83 FR 65433, quoting <em>Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus</em>, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969 (1974)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn30">
<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title="" id="_ftn30">[30]</a> 83 FR 65443</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn31">
<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title="" id="_ftn31">[31]</a> 83 FR 65426</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn32">
<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title="" id="_ftn32">[32]</a> <em>National Lime Association, Petitioner, v. Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency</em>, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn33">
<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title="" id="_ftn33">[33]</a> William Yeatman, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Initial Comments on EPA’s Proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electricity Generating Units Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 RIN 2060-AQ91, January 1, 2014, <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/197288541/Comments-to-EPA-in-Proposed-Carbon-Pollution-Standard-on-January-1-2014">https://www.scribd.com/document/197288541/Comments-to-EPA-in-Proposed-Carbon-Pollution-Standard-on-January-1-2014</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn34">
<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title="" id="_ftn34">[34]</a> EPA, Capture, Supply, and Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/capture-supply-and-underground-injection-carbon-dioxide">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/capture-supply-and-underground-injection-carbon-dioxide</a>.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn35">
<p><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title="" id="_ftn35">[35]</a> Quoting <em>National Asphalt Pavement Association v. Train</em>, 539 F2d. 775, at 786 (D.C. Cir. 1976), which held that the cost of a best system of emission reduction may not be “exorbitant.”</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn36">
<p><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title="" id="_ftn36">[36]</a> NETL, Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR), June 20, 2011, <a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/projects/files/FY11_ImprovingDomesticEnergySecurityLoweringCO2EmissionsNextGenCO2EOR_060111.pdf">https://www.netl.doe.gov/projects/files/FY11_ImprovingDomesticEnergySecurityLoweringCO2EmissionsNextGenCO2EOR_060111.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn37">
<p><a href="#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title="" id="_ftn37">[37]</a> EPA, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator—Calculations and References, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references">https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn38">
<p><a href="#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title="" id="_ftn38">[38]</a> NETL, Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: Untapped Domestic Energy Supply and Long-Term Carbon Storage Solution, <a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf">https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn39">
<p><a href="#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title="" id="_ftn39">[39]</a> Will Kenton, “Perfect Competition,” Investopedia, <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp">https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp</a></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Tuesday, March 19, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><img src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/epa-1.jpg" width="992" height="558" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-subtitle field--type-text field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Subtitle:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495; Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; 83 FR 65424</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-experts field--type-entityreference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Experts:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Marlo Lewis, Jr.</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-publication-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Publication Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/publication-types/outreach/regulatory-comments-and-testimony">Regulatory Comments and Testimony</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/energy-and-environment">Energy and Environment</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/issues/energy">Energy</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) review of its carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) performance standards for new coal-fired power plants.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) strongly supports EPA’s proposed revisions of the standards and the analysis—the best system of emission reduction (BSER) determination—on which the standards are based.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/comment">comment</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/regs">regs</a></div></div></div>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:26:18 +0000ScooterSchaefer94881 at https://cei.orgCEI and SEPP Comments on EPA's 2009 Endangerment Findinghttps://cei.org/content/cei-and-sepp-comments-epas-2009-endangerment-finding
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><div>
<p style="margin-left: 6pt; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20SEPP%20New%20Source%20comments%2020190318.pdf">View Full Document as PDF</a></p>
<p>The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) hereby file these comments in this proceeding in connection with their pending Petition for Rulemaking in Connection with EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding. The CEI-SEPP petition, which was filed in 2017, is attached hereto and can also be found <a href="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking%20on%20Endangerment%202017%20c orrected.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p>In its Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Proposed Rule, EPA stated that its Endangerment Finding “continues to provide the requisite predicate for applicability of [Clean Air Act] section 111(d). Any comments on the issues discussed in this subsection would be more appropriately addressed to the docket on EPA’s intended forthcoming proposal with regard to the new source rule.” 83 FR 44746, 44751-52 (2018).</p>
<p>EPA’s New Source Performance Standards proposal, in turn, stated the following:</p>
<p>“The EPA is proposing to retain the statutory interpretations and record determinations described in this paragraph. Nonetheless, the EPA is aware that various stakeholders have in the past made arguments opposing our views on these points, and the Agency sees value to allowing them to comment on these views in this rulemaking. Accordingly, the Agency will consider comments on the correctness of the EPA’s interpretations and determinations and whether there are alternative interpretations that may be permissible, either as a general matter or specifically as applied to GHG emissions.” 83 FR 65424, 65432 n.25 (Dec. 20, 2018).</p>
<p>SEPP and CEI are two of the stakeholders apparently referenced in this passage. We filed our petition in 2017, contending that EPA should commence a new rulemaking on the subject of its 2009 finding. The grounds for our petition were the following: 1) there had been no statistically significant atmospheric warming despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2 levels; 2) changes in global temperatures in recent decades were far from unusual; 3) new balloon and satellite data showed that the atmosphere was far less sensitive to CO2 forcing than the climate models had predicted; and 4) there was mounting evidence that EPA’s greenhouse gas rules would have no discernible climate impact. For these reasons, there was a need to reexamine both the three lines of evidence for EPA’s Endangerment Finding as well as its underlying rationale.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Our petition is still pending before EPA, and we hereby take this opportunity to provide new evidence for why the agency should proceed with this petition and with similar petitions pending before it. We submit that the papers below, published since the time we first filed our petition, significantly add to the basis for our petition.</p>
<p>Brian C. Ancell, Allison Bogusz, Matthew J. Lauridsen, &amp; Christian J. Nauert, <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0129.1">Seeding Chaos: The Dire Consequences of Numerical Noise in NWP Perturbation Experiments</a>, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (April 19, 2018).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This article examines the effects of “noise” (that is, small random data modifications) in the atmospheric models. It finds that small variations in initial conditions cause rapid changes throughout the models at a rate “well above the propagation speed of any known physical process.” These unrealistic changes can significantly contaminate experimental results, giving the false impression of realistic physical processes.</p>
<p>Bernhard Bereiter, Sarah Shackleton, Daniel Baggenstos, Kenji Kawamura &amp; Jeff Severinghaus, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25152">Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition</a>, Nature (Jan. 3, 2018).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper presents a new way to measure historical ocean temperatures by examining various noble gases, such as argon, krypton, and xenon, that are released by the ocean as it warms. Previous estimation of ocean temperature was based on organisms that were also subject to a variety of other biological factors, causing a large degree of uncertainty. New results show that the ocean has only warmed 0.1 ºC over the past 50 years. This undermines the idea of “hidden heat” in the oceans, and the claims of increased hurricane intensity caused by increased ocean temperatures.</p>
<p>John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell &amp; Robert Junod, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293">Examination of space- based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research</a>, International Journal of Remote Sensing (June 5, 2017).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper recognized a spurious warming in the temperature record of NOAA satellite’s (NOAA-12 and NOAA-14). Once the spurious warming is removed, four separate satellite records show the tropical temperature trend is less than half that of the IPCC climate model simulations relied upon by EPA. These satellite records are highly correlated to other atmospheric temperature data in weather balloons, unlike the IPCC models used by the EPA.</p>
<p>Ben Houlton, Scott Morford, &amp; Randy Dahlgren, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/58">Convergent evidence for widespread rock nitrogen sources in Earth’s surface environment</a>, Science (Apr. 6, 2018).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper challenges the prior view of plant growth in high CO2 atmosphere and the ability of plants to absorb CO2. Previously, it was believed that the limited quantity of nitrogen in the soil limited potential plant growth and eventually limited plants’ ability to absorb CO2. But it now appears that vast quantities of nitrogen in bedrock allow plants to absorb more CO2 than had previously been expected.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Nicholas Lewis &amp; Judith Curry, <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1">The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity</a>, Journal of Climate (July 3, 2018).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper estimates the average expected increase in surface temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be 1.66°C. In contrast, the IPCC AR4 claimed “climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C.” According to the paper, the “climate models [used by the EPA] are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.”</p>
<p>Ross McKitrick &amp; John Christy, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000401">A Test of the Tropical 200- to 300-hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models</a>, Earth and Space Science (July 6, 2018).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper on tropical atmospheric temperature trends shows “that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant." The models used in this paper were both the CHIMP3 models, used by EPA in its Endangerment Finding, and the CHIMP5 models used by the IPCC in AR5. In other words, the models used by EPA do not match real life observations concerning tropical temperatures and this deviation from reality is statistically significant. The paper states: “Comparing observed trends to those predicted by models over the past 60 years reveals a clear and significant tendency on the part of models to overstate warming” and “[a]ll 102 CMIP5 model runs warm faster than observations.”</p>
<p>Henrik Svensmark, Martin Enghoff, Nir Shaviv, &amp; Jacob Svensmark, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2">Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei</a>, Nature Communications (Dec. 19, 2017).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper demonstrates that cosmic rays increase the cloud-condensing nuclei that cause clouds to form. Clouds change the albedo of the earth and are one of the least understood aspects of climate. The IPCC AR4 that EPA relied upon did not include any forcing due to cosmic rays. In its words, “Together with the lack of a proven physical mechanism and the plausibility of other causal factors affecting changes in cloud cover, this makes the association between galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation controversial.” But because cosmic ray-induced cloud formation has now been demonstrated, this undermines the models and historical climate patterns relied upon by EPA. The paper concludes that “ion-induced condensation should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications.”</p>
<p>James P. Wallace III, John R. Christy &amp; Joseph S. D’Aleo, <a href="https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf">On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” &amp; the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding</a>, Abridged Research Report, 2d ed. (April 2017).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper examines the temperature record after taking into account various natural factors including solar activity, volcanic activity, and oceanic activity (e.g., El Niño). The paper concludes that “the Global Warming that has occurred over the period 1959 to date can be quite easily explained by Natural Factor impacts alone.” It contends that these findings invalidate the conclusions of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, stating that “the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in [EPA’s] CO2 Endangerment Finding.”</p>
</div>
<p>James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo &amp; Craig D. Idso, <a href="https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062817.pdf">On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data &amp; the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding</a>, Abridged Research Report (June 2017).</p>
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">This paper analyzes the Global Average Surface Temperature (“GAST”) data produced by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU. It finds that each new version of GAST has increased the warming trend over the entire history of the data. These changes have thus created a spurious increase in historical warming and have invalidly removed cyclical patterns from the historic record. The paper concludes that the GAST records produced by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” Because “GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”</p>
<p>For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those set forth in our 2017 petition, EPA should commence a new proceeding to reexamine its 2009 Endangerment Finding.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Sam Kazman, General Counsel <a href="mailto:sam.kazman@cei.org">sam.kazman@cei.org</a><br />
Devin Watkins, Attorney <a href="mailto:devin.watkins@cei.org">devin.watkins@cei.org</a><br />
Competitive Enterprise Institute<br />
1310 L Street NW, 7th Floor<br />
Washington, DC 20005<br />
(202) 331-1010</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Monday, March 18, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-publication-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Publication Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/publication-types/outreach/regulatory-comments-and-testimony">Regulatory Comments and Testimony</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/energy-and-environment">Energy and Environment</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) hereby file these comments in this proceeding in connection with their pending Petition for Rulemaking in Connection with EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding. The CEI-SEPP petition, which was filed in 2017, is attached hereto and can also be found <u>here</u>.1</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/climate">climate</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/endangerment-finding">endangerment finding</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/epa">EPA</a></div></div></div>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:26:01 +0000PhoebeGersten94880 at https://cei.orgCEI Leads Coalition Letter on Commission on Climate Securityhttps://cei.org/content/cei-leads-coalition-letter-commission-climate-security
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><div>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20letter%20on%20Happer%20Commission%2020190319.pdf">View Full Document as PDF</a></p>
<p>Dear President Trump,</p>
<p>The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.</p>
<p>In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.</p>
<p>The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades. Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.</p>
</div>
<p>We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission. We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.</p>
<p>We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer. Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.</p>
<p>It has been reported that some officials within your administration have proposed an internal working group as an alternative to an independent commission subject to FACA. Insofar as an internal working group would consist of federal career scientists reviewing their own work, we think this alternative would be worse than doing nothing.</p>
<p>Although an independent commission of distinguished scientists would have high credibility, we do not mean to imply that its report should be the end of the matter. We therefore suggest that the National Academies of Science and Engineering would be appropriate bodies to conduct an initial review of the commission’s report.</p>
<p>Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts about the global warming consensus. Many of the signers of this letter have been similarly skeptical. Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it would confirm your views and confound your critics.</p>
<p>For these reasons, we urge you to create by Executive Order a President’s Commission on Climate Security. Thank you for considering our views.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<div>
<p>Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and Environment<br />
and Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow<br />
Competitive Enterprise Institute</p>
<p>Tim Huelskamp, Ph. D., President and CEO<br />
and Joseph L. Bast, Founder and Senior Fellow<br />
The Heartland Institute</p>
<p>Adam Brandon, President<br />
FreedomWorks</p>
<p>Tim Chapman, Executive Director<br />
Heritage Action for America</p>
<p>Thomas Pyle President<br />
American Energy Alliance</p>
<p>Thomas Schatz, President<br />
Citizens Against Government Waste</p>
<p>Craig Rucker, President<br />
and Marc Morano, Publisher, CFACT’s Climate Depot<br />
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)</p>
<p>Steve Milloy, Publisher<br />
Junk Science</p>
<p>James L. Martin, Founder and Chairman<br />
and Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President<br />
60 Plus Association</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, Chairman<br />
and Kenneth Haapala, President<br />
Science and Environmental Policy Project</p>
<p>Robert L. Bradley, Jr., CEO<br />
Institute for Energy Research</p>
<p>Craig D. Idso, Ph. D., Chairman<br />
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change</p>
<p>Tom Harris, Executive Director<br />
International Climate Science Coalition</p>
<p>Eunie Smith, President<br />
Eagle Forum</p>
<p>Rick Manning, President<br />
Americans for Limited Government</p>
<p>Craig Richardson, President<br />
Energy and Environment Legal Institute</p>
<p>Phil Kerpen, President<br />
American Commitment</p>
</div>
<p>Mario H. Lopez, President<br />
Hispanic Leadership Fund</p>
<div>
<p>Al Regnery, Chairman <br />
Conservative Action Project</p>
<p>Bill Walton, Chairman<br />
CNP Action, Inc.</p>
<p>Jennifer Fielder, CEO<br />
American Lands Council</p>
<p>Tom DeWeese, President<br />
American Policy Center</p>
<p>Andrew Langer, President<br />
Institute for Liberty</p>
<p>David T. Stevenson, Policy Director<br />
and Clinton S. Laird, Advisory Council<br />
Caesar Rodney Institute</p>
<p>Rob Roper, President<br />
Ethan Allen Institute</p>
<p>Kory Swanson, President and CEO<br />
John Locke Foundation</p>
<p>Paul Gessing, President<br />
Rio Grande Foundation</p>
<p>Jason Hayes, Director of Environmental Policy<br />
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy</p>
</div>
<p>Kathleen Hartnett White, Senior Fellow and Director,<br />
Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment Life: Powered, a Project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation</p>
<div>
<p>Daniel Turner, Founder and Executive Director<br />
Power the Future</p>
<p>John Droz, Jr., Founder<br />
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions</p>
<p>Alex Epstein, Founder<br />
Center for Industrial Progress</p>
<p>Mark Mathis, President<br />
Clear Energy Alliance</p>
<p>Mandy Gunasekara, Founder<br />
Energy 45 Fund</p>
<p>Peter Ferrara, Chief Consultant<br />
and David Wallace, President and Founder<br />
FAIR Energy Foundation</p>
</div>
<p>Mark Anderson, Executive Director &amp; Host<br />
and Karla Davenport, Co-Owner &amp; Producer<br />
I Spy Radio</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>Affiliations of the individuals listed alphabetically below are given for identification purposes only. Academic affiliations have been placed in parentheses to make this doubly clear.</p>
<p>Peter F. Alexander, L. A., Landscape Architect Planner</p>
<p>J. Scott Armstrong, Ph. D., (Professor, University of Pennsylvania)</p>
<p>Charles R. Anderson, Ph. D., President and Principal Scientist, Anderson Materials Evaluation</p>
<p>Dennis T. Avery, Co-author (with S. Fred Singer) of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years</p>
<p>Timothy Ball, Ph. D., Author of Human Caused Global Warming</p>
<p>Joe Bastardi, Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell.com, Author of The Climate Chronicles Charles G. Battig, M. S., M. D., Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute</p>
<p>E. Calvin Beisner, Ph. D., Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation</p>
<p>Denis Beller, Ph. D., Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), (Research Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas)</p>
<p>Edwin X. Berry, Ph. D. (Physics), Climate Physics, LLC, Montana</p>
<p>Joseph Bevelacqua, Ph. D., CHP, RRPT, President, Bevelacqua Resources Mark J. Block, CEO, Mother Nature’s Trading Company</p>
<p>Karl Bohnak, Chief Meteorologist, WLUC, Marquette, Mich. Vice Admiral Edward S. Briggs, U. S. Navy (ret.)</p>
<p>William Butos, Ph. D., (Ferris Professor, Emeritus, Trinity College) Mark L. Campbell, (Professor, United States Naval Academy)</p>
<p>Alan Carlin, Ph. D., Senior Analyst (ret.), Environmental Protection Agency, CarlinEconomics.com</p>
<p>Mark J. Carr, Channel Design Group</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Jeffrey A. Casey, Ph. D., President, Rockfield Research, Inc.</p>
<p>Dr. Ian Clark, P. Geo., (Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Ottawa)</p>
<p>Dr. Imelda Connolly, Connolly Scientific Research Group Dr. Michael Connolly, Connolly Scientific Research Group</p>
<p>Dr. Ronan Connolly, Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES)</p>
<p>Donn Dears, B. S., (Engineering), Senior Executive, General Electric Company (ret.), Author of Clexit for a Brighter Future</p>
<p>Paul deWitt, M. A., U. S. Navy (ret.)</p>
<p>David Deming, Ph. D. (Geophysics), (Professor of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma)</p>
<p>James D. Derbonné, Aerospace Engineer for Mercury, Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Space Station Programs, NASA (ret.)</p>
<p>Harold H. Doiron, Ph. D. (Mechanical Engineering), Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, Engineer, NASA (ret.)</p>
<p>Becky Norton Dunlop, Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Former Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources</p>
<p>George S. Dunlop, Former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works</p>
<p>John Dale Dunn, M. D., J. D., Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute</p>
<p>Robert W. Endlich, M. S. (Meteorology), Principal, Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.)</p>
<p>Vincent J. Esposito, Sc. D., former Westinghouse Vice President, (Adjunct Professor, University of Pittsburgh)</p>
<p>Bruce M. Everett, Ph. D.</p>
<p>Peter Felker, Ph. D., Los Angeles, California</p>
<p>Neil L. Frank, Ph. D., former Director, National Hurricane Center</p>
<p>Patrick Frank, Ph. D., (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University) Gordon J. Fulks, Ph. D. (Physics—University of Chicago)</p>
<p>Terry Gannon, Ph. D., Climateintro.com</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Grace Germany, NASA (ret.)</p>
<p>Ivar Giaever, Ph. D., Nobel Prize Winner in Physics 1973</p>
<p>Leo Goldstein, M. Sc., President, Science for Humans and Freedom Institute Laurence I. Gould, Ph. D., (Professor of Physics, University of Hartford) Prof. Dr. Hermann Harde, (Helmut-Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany) Larry Hart, Hartco Strategies</p>
<p>Howard Hayden, Ph. D., (Professor Emeritus of Physics University of Connecticut) Thomas Hayward, Admiral, U. S. Navy (ret.)</p>
<p>Dennis Hedke, Consulting Geophysicist, Hedke-Saenger Geoscience, Ltd.</p>
<p>Tom Hennigan, (Associate Professor of Organism Biology and Ecology, Truett McConnell University)</p>
<p>James H. Hollingsworth, M. A. Mark L. Hopkins, BSEE, J. D, MLB William B. Howard, B. S.</p>
<p>Christopher C. Hull, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, Americans for Intelligence Reform Jon P. Kahler, M. S., Retired Meteorologist</p>
<p>Richard A. Keen, Ph. D., (Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado)</p>
<p>Hugh Kendrick, Ph. D., P. E., Former Director, Plans and Analysis, Nuclear Reactor Research, U. S. Department of Energy</p>
<p>Sheryl Kaufman, Corporate Chief Economist (ret.), Phillips Petroleum Company Madhav Khandekar, Ph. D., Scientist (ret.), Environment Canada</p>
<p>William L. Kovacs, J. D., Former Senior Vice President for Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs at a major trade association</p>
<p>Hans U. Kurr, Simultaneous Interpreter (ret.), United Nations</p>
<p>Gary Kyle, (Professor of Physics Emeritus, New Mexico State University) David R. Legates, Ph. D., (Professor, University of Delaware)</p>
<p>Jay Lehr, Ph. D., Science Director, The Heartland Institute Jonathan A. Lesser, Ph. D., President, Continental Economics, Inc.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Floy Lilley, J. D., Special Projects, Mises Institute Anthony R. Lupo, (Professor, Columbia, Missouri)</p>
<p>Robert Lyman, Energy Economist, ENTRANS Policy Research Group Matthew Malkan, Ph. D., Los Angeles, California</p>
<p>Martin J. Mangino, Ph. D., (Virginia Commonwealth University)</p>
<p>R. Timothy McCrum, J. D., Member of the DC and Supreme Court Bars, Washington,</p>
<p>D. C.</p>
<p>Michael McKenna, Former Trump Transition head for Department of Energy, FERC, and NRC</p>
<p>Patrick J. Michaels, Ph. D., Past President, American Association of State Climatologists</p>
<p>Dennis M. Mitchell, CPA (ret.), Qualified Environmental Professional Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor, National Review Online</p>
<p>Miles J. Novy, M. D., (Emeritus Professor and Senior Scientist, Oregon Health Sciences University)</p>
<p>Dennis G. Ortega,</p>
<p>James M. Peacock, Aerospace Engineer (ret.) for Apollo, Sky Lab, and Space Shuttle Programs, NASA, U. S. Air Force Research and Development</p>
<p>Charles W. Pennington, M. S., MBA, Vice President, NAC International (ret.) Charles A. Perry, Ph. D., Climatologist</p>
<p>John W. Peterson, Burke, Va.</p>
<p>Brian Pratt, Ph. D., (University of Saskatchewan)</p>
<p>A. G. Randol III, Ph. D., Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment</p>
<p>Allen Rogers, CEO, ALR Consulting</p>
<p>Bernard Rosenbaum, Senior Engineer (ret.), Propulsion and Power Division, NASA Johnson Space Center</p>
<p>James H. Rust, Policy Adviser, The Heartland Institute, (Professor of Nuclear Engineering (ret.), Georgia Tech)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Gary D. Sharp, Ph. D., Scientific Director, Center for Climate and Ocean Resources Study</p>
<p>Hal Shurtleff, Director, Camp Constitution</p>
<p>Willie Soon, Ph. D., Solar and Atmospheric Physicist</p>
<p>Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (Meteorology), (University of Alabama Huntsville)</p>
<p>Charles N. Steele, Ph. D., (Herman and Suzanne Dettwiler Chair in Economics, Hillsdale College)</p>
<p>J. Eldon Steelman, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering) Ted Stout, D. C.</p>
<p>Szymon Suckewer, Ph. D., D. Sc. (Habilitation), (Professor Emeritus, Princeton University)</p>
<p>Michael C. Sununu, S. B. (MIT)</p>
<p>Daniel Sutter, (Professor of Economics, Troy University)</p>
<p>Brendon Swedlow, Ph. D, J. D., (Associate Professor, Northern Illinois University) Thomas Tanton, Energy and Environment Legal Institute</p>
<p>Mitchell Taylor, Ph. D., (Adjunct Professor, Lakehead University), Former Member of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group</p>
<p>Nancy J. Thorner, Lake Bluff, Ill.</p>
<p>David H. Tofsted, Ph. D. (Electrical Engineering), former Senior Research Physicist,</p>
<p>U. S. Army Research Laboratory, White Sands Missile Range</p>
<p>Cecil Joe Tomlinson, Senior Principal Engineer (ret.), Boeing Company</p>
<p>Brian Gregory Valentine, D. Eng., U. S. Department of Energy, (University of Maryland)</p>
<p>Donald R. van der Vaart, Ph. D. (Trinity College, Cambridge), P. E., J. D., Former Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality</p>
<p>Phil Volker, President, ERF/WMG Companies, Inc.</p>
<p>Lance Wallace, Ph. D. (Astrophysics), EPA Office of Research and Development (ret.) Anthony Watts, Meteorologist and Publisher, Watts Up With That?</p>
<p>Steven Weismantel, Connecticut Climate Realists Chuck F. Wiese, Meteorologist, Weatherwise, Inc.</p>
</div>
<p>Adam Wildavsky, S. B. (MIT), Senior Software Engineer (ret.), Google David Wojick, Ph. D.</p>
<p>George T. Wolff, Ph. D., Principal Scientist, Air Improvement Resources, Inc.</p>
<p>Thomas H. Wysmuller, Meteorologist, NASA (ret.), Founding Member of the Right Climate Stuff Team</p>
<p>Benjamin Zycher, Ph. D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Monday, March 18, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><img src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/white%20house.PNG" width="609" height="407" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-publication-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Publication Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/publication-types/outreach/coalition-letters">Coalition Letters</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Dear President Trump,</p>
<p>The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. </p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/harper">harper</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/trump">Trump</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/commission-climate-security">commission on climate security</a></div></div></div>Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:50:07 +0000PhoebeGersten94879 at https://cei.orgCEI Releases New Video: How Antitrust Harms Consumers by Stifling Innovation and Competitionhttps://cei.org/content/cei-releases-new-video-how-antitrust-harms-consumers-stifling-innovation-and-competition
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>The Competitive Enterprise Institute (<a href="https://cei.org/">CEI</a>) today launched a new video, “<a href="https://cei.org/antitrust">Antitrust Explained</a>,” disputing recent calls by politicians and academics to use antitrust laws and regulations to break up large companies. Just last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-up-platforms-has-sickening-implications/">released a plan to break up technology companies</a> like Amazon, Facebook, and Google.</p>
<p>The video provides a brief history of antitrust policy in the United States and explains the negative impact these laws and regulations can have on the market, consumers, and our economy.</p>
<p><strong>CEI Vice President for Strategy <a href="https://cei.org/expert/iain-murray">Iain Murray</a> said:</strong></p>
<p>“Recent years have seen the growth of a revival of demands for strict antitrust enforcement based around the size of companies, not on whether their actions harm American consumers. These demands have reached a new height with the publication by Senator Elizabeth Warren of a plan to break up big platform companies. Activists on both the left and right are pushing politicians to use antitrust laws to penalize large and innovative American companies.</p>
<p>“As our new video, ‘Antitrust Explained,’ points out, history is rife with examples of once-dominant large companies, like CompuServe and Nokia, which fell from their positions of power because they were unable to innovate enough to compete in the free market. The truth is that government intervention does more to create barriers to entry that entrench powerful incumbent corporations than the free market, which forces companies to innovate in order to grow their business and prosper. We hope this video will introduce these concepts to a new generation of thinkers.”</p>
<p>You can watch the video and read more on antitrust at <a href="https://cei.org/antitrust">cei.org/antitrust</a>.</p>
<p><strong><u>Script for “Antitrust Explained”</u></strong></p>
<p>NARRATOR: As companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google dominate the tech market, we’re hearing familiar words like “antitrust” and “monopoly” being thrown around. What do they mean?</p>
<p>People usually associate monopoly with the game, but it is when a person or enterprise gains complete control of a commodity or service in a particular market.</p>
<p>“Antitrust” doesn’t have the same pop culture notoriety. The 2001 film “Antitrust;” A thinly veiled attack on Bill Gates, bombed at the box office.</p>
<p>So, what’s the connection between antitrust and monopoly?</p>
<p>Historically, monopoly status was granted by a monarch to a chartered company or trade union, giving them exclusive rights to a particular market. Let’s say you were a merchant who wanted to control the tea trade. Make the king a financial partner in your company, get exclusive licenses, and like that, you have a monopoly on tea.</p>
<p>It turns out, government and monopoly go hand-in-hand.</p>
<p><strong>(Milton Friedman) “Well, I believe if you examine, if you examine the sources of monopoly and oligopoly, you will find that almost all those sources are government intervention.”</strong></p>
<p>NARRATOR: The term “antitrust” hit the American lexicon at the turn of the 20th century. Politicians, riding a wave of populism (does that sound familiar?) went after “trusts” - or large umbrella companies that held the assets of many different businesses—claiming that they were “monopolies.”</p>
<p>This is where “trustbusting” came from. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, and by 1911, President Teddy Roosevelt was hellbent on busting trusts, or large successful enterprises created by industrialists like J.P. Morgan.</p>
<p><strong>(Iain Murray) “Well, the big worry of the trust-busters of the early 20th century, was that large innovative companies were just becoming too successful, that they were cornering the market. And, because they had significant market power, they would be able to abuse that market power.”</strong></p>
<p>NARRATOR: Take Standard Oil. By the early 20th century, Rockefeller's oil giant was making energy more affordable and accessible than it had ever been to millions of Americans, but because his company had a large share of the market, the government moved in to break it up.</p>
<p><strong>(Iain Murray) “Standard Oil was punished for its success, and that, unfortunately became the standard model for antitrust for most of the first half of the 20th century.”</strong></p>
<p>NARRATOR: When bureaucrats couldn’t prove companies had an actual “monopoly” over markets, they instead relied on what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called “the curse of bigness.” Brandeis believed that if a company was too large and too profitable, it was an inherent threat to the market.</p>
<p>Of course, it’s hard to pinpoint what is too large and too profitable, so by the 1980’s, most regulators adopted the Consumer Welfare Standard, which says that a company’s size or success doesn’t matter, as long as consumers aren’t hurt.</p>
<p>Fast forward to the tech boom in the 90’s, and companies like Microsoft, Compuserve, and Nokia seemed like all-but-untouchable monopolies. Of course, we know how the free market handled most of those companies. But the neo-Brandeisian folks—the ones who agreed with Justice Brandeis that big is automatically bad—did manage to get one, well, partial scalp, delivering A landmark antitrust ruling again Microsoft in 2000.</p>
<p><strong>(Bill Gates) “This ruling turns on its head the reality that consumers know, that our software has helped make PCs more accessible and affordable to millions.”</strong></p>
<p>NARRATOR: So here we are today. Reading President Trump’s tweets and enjoying baby pictures on Instagram, while a new breed of antitrust advocates are repackaging old Brandeisian ideas into what some call “hipster antitrust.” </p>
<p>The theory is companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple have become so big, have so much of our data, and are able to buy up start-ups so fast, that they have become an existential threat to the marketplace.</p>
<p><strong>(Iain) “If what you're saying to a startup is, if you become big, we will dismember you, then those startups have no real incentive to become big.”</strong></p>
<p>NARRATOR: The problem is, there are no limits to the internet. There is nothing concrete to control—it can forever be added to, changed, innovated, and built. Tech giants can rise and fall virtually overnight, if there are no barriers to entry created by government.</p>
<p>If antitrust teaches us anything, it’s that history repeats itself. In a market free of government protections and controls, it is next to impossible to achieve “monopoly,” and old solutions to new so-called problems rarely change outcomes.</p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<ul><li>Murray: <a href="https://cei.org/content/breaking-platforms-has-sickening-implications" target="_blank">Breaking Up Platforms Has Sickening Implications</a></li>
<li>Murray: <a href="https://cei.org/content/how-antitrust-regulation-hinders-innovation-and-competition" target="_blank">How Antitrust Regulation Hinders Innovation and Competition</a></li>
<li>Melugin: <a href="https://cei.org/content/plan-break-tech-companies-bad-news-consumers-innovation">Plan to Break Up Tech Companies "Bad News for Consumers, Innovation"</a></li>
<li>Crews: <a href="https://cei.org/blog/ditch-antitrust-regulation-favor-competing-bigness">Ditch Antitrust Regulation in Favor of Competing Bigness</a></li>
</ul></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><img src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/antitrust%20video%20clip.PNG" width="1211" height="680" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-experts field--type-entityreference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Experts:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Iain Murray</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Wednesday, March 13, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/antitrust-and-competition">Antitrust and Competition</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/issues/business-and-government">Business and Government</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/tech-and-telecom">Tech and Telecom</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/antitrust">ANTITRUST</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/big-tech">big tech</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/facebook">FACEBOOK</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/google">GOOGLE</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/apple">APPLE</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/platforms">platforms</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-media-appearance-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Media appearance type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/media-appearance-types/news-releases">News Releases</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today launched a new video, “Antitrust Explained,” disputing recent calls by politicians and academics to use antitrust laws and regulations to break up large companies. Just last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a plan to break up technology companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google.</div></div></div>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:59:28 +0000PhoebeGersten94866 at https://cei.orgCEI Lunch Briefing: Busting Trustbusters Since 1984https://cei.org/content/cei-lunch-briefing-busting-trustbusters-1984
<div class="field field--name-field-location field--type-addressfield field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><div class="street-block"><div class="thoroughfare">2 Constitution Ave NE</div></div>
<div class="addressfield-container-inline locality-block country-US"><span class="locality">Washington</span>, <span class="state">DC</span> <span class="postal-code">20002</span></div>
<span class="country">United States</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-event-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Event Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><ul id="addtocal_node_94864_menu" class="addtocal_menu"><li><a href="/node/94864/field_event_date//addtocal-google" target="_blank">Google</a></li>
<li><a href="/node/94864/field_event_date//addtocal.ics">Outlook</a></li>
<li><a href="/node/94864/field_event_date//addtocal.ics">MAC/iOS</a></li>
</ul></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Join CEI experts for a lunch discussion about encouraging freedom and innovation through <a href="http://go.cei.org/e/287682/2019-03-12/k4967/268546414?h=2ZaCJkT9KWaEZdaxzZ01T9-UvMVvQuT4mbGG4QBS4Ns">antitrust reform</a>. Calls on Capitol Hill for increased antitrust scrutiny have been fanned by recent administration challenges to mergers, related criticism of big tech, and the rise of so-called 'hipster antitrust.' While the players may be new, the principles remain the same. Antitrust regulations restrict the rights of individuals to determine with whom and under what circumstances they wish to deal. There's also no such thing as a permanent and assured dominant market position unless the government guarantees it. In the end, the cost of antitrust regulation is the innovation that it prevents.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Join CEI experts for a lunch discussion about encouraging freedom and innovation through <a href="http://go.cei.org/e/287682/2019-03-12/k4967/268546414?h=2ZaCJkT9KWaEZdaxzZ01T9-UvMVvQuT4mbGG4QBS4Ns">antitrust reform</a>. Calls on Capitol Hill for increased antitrust scrutiny have been fanned by recent administration challenges to mergers, related criticism of big tech, and the rise of so-called 'hipster antitrust.' While the players may be new, the principles remain the same. Antitrust regulations restrict the rights of individuals to determine with whom and under what circumstances they wish to deal. There's also no such thing as a permanent and assured dominant market position unless the government guarantees it. In the end, the cost of antitrust regulation is the innovation that it prevents.</p>
<hr /><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>WHEN:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Wednesday, March 27, 2019<br />
12:00 - 1:00 PM<br />
Lunch will be served</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>WHERE:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Russell Senate Office Building, Room SR-485</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">2 Constitution Ave NE,<br />
Washington, DC 20002</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>WHO:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://go.cei.org/e/287682/expert-clyde-wayne-crews/k4969/268546414?h=2ZaCJkT9KWaEZdaxzZ01T9-UvMVvQuT4mbGG4QBS4Ns"><strong>Wayne Crews</strong></a>, Vice President<br /><a href="http://go.cei.org/e/287682/staff-jessica-melugin/k496c/268546414?h=2ZaCJkT9KWaEZdaxzZ01T9-UvMVvQuT4mbGG4QBS4Ns"><strong>Jessica Melugin</strong></a>, Associate Director, Center for Technology and Innovation<br /><a href="http://go.cei.org/e/287682/expert-iain-murray/k496f/268546414?h=2ZaCJkT9KWaEZdaxzZ01T9-UvMVvQuT4mbGG4QBS4Ns"><strong>Iain Murray</strong></a>, Vice President</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Questions? Please email <a href="mailto:events@cei.org">events@cei.org</a> or <a href="mailto:canyon.brimhall@cei.org">canyon.brimhall@cei.org</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>For purposes of congressional ethics rules, this is a widely attended event.</em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/antitrust-and-competition">Antitrust and Competition</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/issues/tech-and-telecom">Tech and Telecom</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/antitrust">ANTITRUST</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/trustbusters">trustbusters</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/tech">tech</a></div></div></div>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:02:45 +0000PhoebeGersten94864 at https://cei.orgBreaking Up Platforms Has Sickening Implicationshttps://cei.org/content/breaking-platforms-has-sickening-implications
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p><a href="https://antitrust.cei.org/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Hipster antitrust</a> sickens me. Literally. I was under the weather last week. Feeling ill, I spent a good amount of time at local pharmacies, searching for cures. When shopping for a decongestant or a sleep aid, I compared the “brand” name product to the store’s own brand. I bought their own brand every time, saving some money in the process. A <a href="https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c" rel="noopener" target="_blank">new economic plan</a> recently put forth by Senator Elizabeth Warren could make that process illegal.</p>
<p>Warren claims that her plan aims to bolster competition by breaking up “Big Tech” companies through robust antitrust enforcement, an approach now increasingly popular on both the political <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/tim-wu-antitrust-law" rel="noopener" target="_blank">left</a> and <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/19/donald-trump-roosevelt-monopoly-antitrust-facebook-apple-netflix-google-column/2049321002/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">right</a>. It is likely to backfire, and is not even necessary.</p>
<p>Warren’s plan would designate as “platform utilities” all companies with a global revenue of over $25 billion a year that offer an online marketplace, exchange, or platform for third parties. These companies would be forced to divest themselves of any “participant” on that platform. It seems like a simple concept, but the devil is in the details — and the lack of bright lines.</p>
<p>Under Warren’s plan, Apple would have to remove Apple apps from its App Store, and presumably also the App Store from iPhones, unless those became separate enterprises. Netflix would no longer be able to offer its own content alongside content from third parties. Voice devices — a fiercely competitive market at the moment — would have to direct you to a weather service rather than just telling you the weather.</p>
<p>The plan would essentially outlaw most large tech companies’ business models. Search firms, for instance, sell ads based on the data they collect around users’ search habits. Spinning a search engine off into a separate company would break that link, rendering the model impossible. The Internet would look and act much more primitive than the Internet we know today. Rather than what tech guru Tim O’Reilly calls the “magical use experience” that tech companies now offer their customers, virtually every online transaction would involve switching between different providers, each with its own interfaces and quirks. Using the Internet would become laborious again.</p>
<p>Warren’s plan would also forbid mergers and buyouts that “reduce competition.” Yet, buyouts by large tech firms offer a way for innovators to realize a return on their initial investment that is often part of their business plan. That’s because financial regulation, of which Senator Warren is a leading champion in Congress, has made it extremely difficult for a firm to raise capital by going public via IPO, as entrepreneurs did in years past. Without the potential of a lucrative buyout, entrepreneurs will find it harder to attract venture capital; some innovations simply will not happen.</p>
<p>Warren <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18257965/elizabeth-warren-break-up-apple-monopoly-antitrust" rel="noopener" target="_blank">claims</a> her plan offers a bright line standard. Yet it offers no compelling distinction between online platforms where people search for bargains and Walmart, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/16/walmart-passes-apple-to-become-no-3-online-retailer-in-u-s/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the #3 online retailer</a> with its own proprietary brands. Warren’s plan in its execution might actually go far beyond Big Tech to any large company that offers an online marketplace. Almost every large U.S. retailer does so. Retailers who offer their own private brand products could have to spin them off into separate companies were Warren’s plan to be enacted. The price for relief from my illness would have been higher. Furthermore, a platform would be required to treat all products in its marketplace “neutrally,” so goodbye discounts or reward points.</p>
<p>In effect, the Warren plan wants to fundamentally reorganize how a lot of American companies do business. In that sense, it is every bit as ambitious as the <a href="https://cei.org/blog/economics-green-new-deal-more-red-green" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Green New Deal</a>. Like the Green New Deal, it is based on a utopian technocratic vision that is oblivious to how people react in the real world. Warren claims that nothing will change with our user experience. The fact that someone in a position of power can make such a claim suggests how far politicians still have to go in learning the limits to shape our world.</p>
<p><em>Originally published at <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-up-platforms-has-sickening-implications/">National Review</a></em>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><img src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/elizabeth%20warren_0.jpg" width="608" height="339" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-experts field--type-entityreference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Experts:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Iain Murray</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Tuesday, March 12, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-url field--type-url field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Source:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/breaking-up-platforms-has-sickening-implications/">National Review</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/tech-and-telecom">Tech and Telecom</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/warren">warren</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/antitrust">ANTITRUST</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/big-tech">big tech</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-media-appearance-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Media appearance type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/media-appearance-types/op-eds-and-articles">Op-Eds and Articles</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Hipster antitrust sickens me. Literally. I was under the weather last week. Feeling ill, I spent a good amount of time at local pharmacies, searching for cures. When shopping for a decongestant or a sleep aid, I compared the “brand” name product to the store’s own brand. I bought their own brand every time, saving some money in the process. A new economic plan recently put forth by Senator Elizabeth Warren could make that process illegal.</div></div></div>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 19:10:58 +0000PhoebeGersten94863 at https://cei.orgWashington Bureaucrats Should Stay Out of T-Mobile-Sprint Mergerhttps://cei.org/content/washington-bureaucrats-should-stay-out-t-mobile-sprint-merger
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Today, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law will <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/state-competition-wireless-market-examining-impact-proposed-merger-t-mobile-0">hold a hearing</a> on the proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint. The hearing will include testimony from the CEO of T-Mobile, the Executive Chairman of Sprint, and experts on communications and technology policy.</p>
<p><strong>Associate Director of CEI’s Center for Technology and Innovation <a href="https://cei.org/staff/jessica-melugin">Jessica Melugin</a> said:</strong></p>
<p>“The proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint should be allowed to move forward promptly and with no conditions attached to it by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Following this merger, T-Mobile and Sprint will be able to combine their resources, stay competitive with Verizon and AT&amp;T, and hopefully help the mobile communications industry in the United States win the race to build the first 5G network.</p>
<p>“Regulators may think they are acting with the best interests of consumers in mind, but could inadvertently derail any progress made toward securing the future of 5G, doing more harm than good for consumers in the process. The free market – with all its price signals and nuances – innovates, coordinates, and corrects better than teams of lawyers in clunky Washington bureaucracies.</p>
<p>“Allowing Sprint and T-Mobile to merge without harmful and arbitrary conditions would be a good first step in recognizing the wisdom of the marketplace and the folly of antitrust regulation. For the sake of American consumers and our economy’s competitiveness, Washington bureaucrats should keep their hands off the future of 5G communications.”</p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<ul><li>Melugin: <a href="https://cei.org/blog/discard-static-market-analysis-let-sprint-and-t-mobile-merge">Discard Static Market Analysis, Let Sprint and T-Mobile Merge</a></li>
<li>Melugin and Radia: <a href="https://cei.org/content/opinion-why-government-should-stand-aside-and-allow-t-mobile-and-sprint-merge">Why the Government Should Stand Aside and Allow T-Mobile and Sprint to Merge</a></li>
</ul></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><img src="https://cei.org/sites/default/files/GettyImages-670163964.jpg" width="4592" height="3448" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-experts field--type-entityreference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Experts:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Jessica Melugin</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-date field--type-datetime field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Date:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Tuesday, March 12, 2019</span></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-issues field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/issues/tech-and-telecom">Tech and Telecom</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-search-keywords field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Search Keywords:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/t-mobile-sprint-merger">T-mobile Sprint Merger</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/search-keywords/antitrust">ANTITRUST</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/search-keywords/merger">merger</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-media-appearance-type field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Media appearance type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/media-appearance-types/news-releases">News Releases</a></div></div></div><div class="field field--name-field-teaser field--type-text-long field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Teaser:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">Today, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law will hold a hearing on the proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint. The hearing will include testimony from the CEO of T-Mobile, the Executive Chairman of Sprint, and experts on communications and technology policy.</div></div></div>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:49:37 +0000PhoebeGersten94861 at https://cei.org